Informed discussion requested

Maybe a little consideration is needed here.

How about we all give the guy a little encouragement? Let him bring it to market and that will tell the tale.

In other words,, Let's all take the high road. Just because it's improbable doesn't make it impossible. I myself have a device that will completely eliminate the need for petroleum fuels. Been threatened over it as well. Don't cast dispersion on what you don't know the whole story of.

Like that ignorant idiot a while back. Tried to replace the best gun ever built with some darned new fangled semi auto thinga ma jig. They shoulda' hung that John M Browning character for trying to foist off that new styled junk on us experienced shooters. We know what works and ain't no way a short, fat, slow moving bullet, shot from a 7 round semi-automatic ever gonna change the way people defend themselves.:banghead:

The man requested "informed discussion."

What are we supposed to do, lie and tell him it's never been tried and he should sink his life savings in it?

Don't cast dispersion...

Click to expand...

I think that's "dont' cast aspersions," but anyway I, for one, did not. I've offered all the encouragement that would be reasonable (perhaps more) but like Vern, I think it only fair to offer a word of caution that this is going to be a knotty physics problem to actually overcome, it will be a tough sell at best, and the commercial company into which a product would be immediately cast is not the best and would be a burden to overcome, itself.

But, the best of luck to him!

Sam. Vern... Points well taken. I'm possibly a bit bristly from my own trials of inventing. It's easy to see all the problems that would stop progress, after all, it's all we hear.

Solving those issues is the cause of a lot of lost sleep.


Tired of paying high electric bills? Tired of putting gas in your car? Yep, Me too. So I don't. Can you do the same thing? Nope. Not until the powers that be figure some way to make a profit on it.

To keep it on topic... I have my doubts as well. I've played with the idea of multiple projectiles, attempting to double the terminal effectiveness without drastically increasing the gun size or the recoil. I couldn't do it and don't see how it could be done but I'm open to the idea that it can be done.


And I apologize for coming across so.... abrupt. Didn't mean it that way.

And I apologize for coming across so.... abrupt

Click to expand...

FWIW, I don't think you did. The OP, on the other hand, came asking a favor, explained everything's tested but too secret to reveal...and then implied that the first replier didn't understand physics or rifling. Kinda off-putting.

in a rough and tumble scenario, in the dark, dodging blows or bullets, it offers me 2x the odds of hitting my attacker at all.

Click to expand...

Does this remind anyone else of the "you don't have to aim a shotgun" idea? If the projectiles have that much spread...how do you know that either round is going where it was aimed?

If I am discouraging, so be it. But the odor I'm getting is not pleasant.

Can I point out that the 'tactical ninja exploding pants clan' still manages to sell ammo
even if it is named rather silly things and well, is VERY use specific.

Can I point out that the 'tactical ninja exploding pants clan' still manages to sell ammo

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely! And we may offer the OP encouragement, with this practical example, that there may be a fortune to be made on such a product even if the results of his development aren't as positive as he would hope.

What things make for a successful business plan? Technological or ballistic superiority over the old, known, standards isn't even near the top of that list.

I'd say it's like buckshot vs. slug for a shotgun.
It depends on the application needed.
Either way, to see a million little holes on target when shooting a pistol would be kind of neat. I'll bet money it would have a lot of room for growth in the pest control department. Those CCI loads in .44 won't hit a bird at 5 yards for anything.
You have my vote of support.

Been there, done that. The .357 round was called the QuadraMax and used 4 H&G wadcutters in a .357 Maximum case for a thru bored cylinder. My revolver was a rechambered M14 Dan Wesson. The bottom bullet seated so deeply that it bulged the brass. Accuracy was out the window; meaning that it seldom shot to the same POA with successive shots. I was told that a Tayllor forcing cone would help as it would align the wadcutters before they engaged the rifling, but I didn't try it. I gave up and replaced the cylinder.

Wouldnt this constitute a machine gun? The whole more than one projectile with a single activation of the trigger thing?

FYI, I haven't read all the replys other than a couple, but I did a little experament a several years ago using 2 bullets in one cartridge case. I took a .45 Colt case and loaded it with two 141gr. .452 round balls (typically used for ball&cap revolvers) and I actually used black powder for a propellent. (as much as I could get in the case) Then I went out to have a fun day of shooting, I will tell you that those twin lead balls would not shoot in the same spot, as one would usually go high and the other go low. They both didn't shoot to bad as far as left to right goes, but that was it, and it seemed that the further away you were from your target the larger the top to bottom spread was. IMO, if I wanted a SD round in a .45 Colt it would be a single projectial of 225 grs. or heavier. LM

Google "Triton Quik-Shok" ammo. Same basic idea.

Cliff's Notes:
Flash in the pan. Came and went. Now a footnote.

Bottom line: read up on "sectional density". Your proposal is antithetical to the concept.

Wouldnt this constitute a machine gun? The whole more than one projectile with a single activation of the trigger thing?

Click to expand...

No, unless you'd consider firing a 12 ga. load of no 8 shot to be the equivalent of a "400-round burst!"